Fair points. It got me thinking, though. What proportion of Wikipedia editing is automated? Or rather, what proportion of edits would be considered "human" as opposed to "something else" (done on autopilot or using a bot)? This is a different question to what proportion are automated imports - that sort of question is something I've been meaning to ask at Commons, and also trying to find out what proportion of pictures get used in a recognisable way (and what is done with pictures that are unlikely to ever be used).
Carcharoth
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
I recently came across this wiki:
It seemed a lot better than Wikipedia for what I wanted to look up.
Has anyone else come across this wiki before?
It launched to modest fanfare last year, but I hadn't seen much about it since.
It looks like their main focus has been batch imports of content from other sources, including lots of full journal articles automatically quasi-formatted for the wiki. Actual human edits seem to be minimal, though. Compare all edits (dominated by automatic imports) versus mainspace edits (which trickle in slowly):
http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=0&limit=500&... http://wiki.medpedia.com/Special:RecentChanges?namespace=&limit=500&...
-Sage
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l